(26 November 2019 - 02:06 PM)I know what you mean, it gets awkard to post something unrelated to the current conversation, and even if somebody picks up on it, it would just become a huge mess in the c hatbox if a multitude of groups talk about different topics.

One thing I think people don't frequently note is that SOPA/PIPA are not really censorship by nature, but act as such if we make major simplifications. They're copyright and intellectual property acts (in fact, Alberta's own intellectual property standard law in regards to patents, copyright, trademark, and trade secret IS actually called PIPA, with a federal one for Canada is called PIPEDA).

Censorship could happen if we made a few assumptions: - That larger corporations would attempt to use them to attack companies that could not fight a US based take-down notice - That judges would agree with such a complaint. Remember, take-down notices, as defined in the act, would happen if a judge gave court order to do so. That would mean there needed to be sufficient proof of stolen intellectual property (being the accusatory party) and that the site was primarily defined to distribute it. The burden of proof is on the company, and websites such as Facebook/Google being targeted was outlandish by even a precursory reading of the proposed acts. - That the owner of such site couldn't fight the complaints in court. If this was used as a way to squash things, it had to make sure that the defendant couldn't challenge the ruling.

These are some major assumptions we have made. Especially the concept of judicial intervention. I imagine few courts would take up trivial cases, while larger cases could fight back. And that's if it is used in such a manner with courts at the company's back.

Would it be ineffective as hell at protecting IP? Yeah. Anybody with half a brain for the internet would show that. And I never had problems with people saying it's an ineffective IP bill. But is it censorship at heart? Probably not.